Together with President
George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is at the
forefront of international condemnation of the Iraqi regime for its
production of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in violation of
numerous United Nation resolutions. Blair describes Saddam Hussein
as an "international outlaw" running a "barbaric regime" and warns
that "to allow him to use the weapons he has or the weapons he
wants would be an act of gross irresponsibility and we should not
countenance it."[1] His
clear call to Britain and the international community is to stand
together to face the threat posed by Iraq's regime and to force a
regime change if it continues to defy the U.N. mandates:[2]

The issue is making
sure it [Iraq] is not a threat and either the regime starts to
function in an entirely different way, and there hasn't been much
sign of that, or the regime has to change. That is the choice, very
simply.[3]

The release by Downing
Street of the British government's powerful dossier on Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction confirms the Prime Minister's position
at the forefront of the campaign to remove Saddam Hussein from
power.[4]
Alongside President Bush, he is carefully crafting an international
coalition to confront Iraq, which now includes Italy, Spain, and
several Arab nations.[5]

The 50-page dossier is
a powerful indictment of the Iraqi government and a stark warning
to the world regarding Iraq's development of chemical, biological
and nuclear weapons. It demonstrates how Iraq is generating
billions of dollars through illicit earnings outside of U.N.
control to finance its weapons program. The British government has
warned that Baghdad has "tried covertly to acquire technology and
materials which could be used in the production of nuclear weapons
(and) sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, despite
having no active civil nuclear power programme that could require
it." The report predicts that Iraq would be capable of producing a
nuclear weapon on its own within five years, and within two years
if Saddam Hussein is able to obtain weapons-grade material from
abroad. In addition Baghdad is actively developing missiles with a
range of more than 1,000 kilometers, which would be in service by
2007.

Such support from Tony
Blair for the U.S.-led effort to rid the world of the threat from
Saddam Hussein is vital, but before Blair can play the full role as
America's key partner in any war against Baghdad, the Prime
Minister must slay two dragons in his path: dissent within his own
Cabinet and Labour party and widespread opposition within the
European Union (EU). If he is successful, his effort will have
allowed him to demonstrate real leadership within the House of
Commons and throughout Europe. If he is not, there is a real danger
that the international coalition against Iraq could collapse.

The EU, in fact, may
try to capitalize on opposition to an Iraq war to project its
influence on the global stage. There is little doubt that the
closeness of the Anglo-American "special relationship" since
September 11, 2001, has caused envy and disquiet among the leaders
of the militarily inadequate EU. Brussels focuses much of its
resentment for its irrelevance on the world stage on Tony Blair.
For example, Belgian foreign minister Louis Michel has expressed
the irritation among EU members that the organization is unable to
condemn the Bush Administration with a single voice "in large part
because Britain, through Tony Blair, gives unquestioned, unilateral
support to the United States."[6]
Expressing the desire of many Europeans to compete with the United
States, Michel opined that: "Morally and politically we could take
charge in the world. But the British are blocking that. They still
don't understand that they could play a pioneer role in Europe
instead of submissively following the US."[7]

Indeed, Britain's
position as a leading global player has been greatly enhanced in
large part due to Blair's standing "shoulder to shoulder" with
President Bush after the terrorist attacks. It is the only nation
in Europe able to project substantial military strength beyond the
European continent, and has emerged as the world's second most
powerful military and political force in the new century.

Britain will play a
vitally important role in any military action against Baghdad. But
Tony Blair's ability to help build the international coalition
against Iraq's rogue regime will be hampered significantly if his
position within the governing Labour Party is weakened. Should that
happen, the success of the effort to cement the international
coalition against Iraq is at risk. The Bush Administration must
recognize the difficulties Blair faces in shoring up support at
home and across Europe. It should demonstrate its support for Tony
Blair's courageous lead and focus on ways to strengthen the
Anglo-U.S. "special relationship" while continuing to build an
international coalition for a campaign to oust Saddam
Hussein.

Domestic Challenges to Blair's Iraq Policy

Despite British Prime
Minister Tony Blair's unequivocal position on the threat that Iraq
poses to the region, the West, and the world, he faces significant
opposition at home and in Europe. That opposition is likely to wane
once the inevitable war begins. And many of those now vociferously
objecting to an effort to force Iraq to comply with U.N. mandates
regarding weapons of mass destruction and regional security will
seek to participate in Iraq's reconstruction after the war
ends.

Face with such
opposition, it is important for U.S. policymakers to understand the
monumental leadership Blair is showing in this issue.

Labour Party
Opposition. Dissent within the Labour Party over Iraq has
grown significantly in recent months. Of the 160 backbench Members
of Parliament (MPs) who signed a Commons motion opposing military
action in Iraq are 133 from Blair's own Labour Party, all 18
Liberal Democrats, and all nationalist party MPs from Scotland and
Wales.[8] The
motion was sponsored by left-wing activist MP Alice Mahon, who is
unstinting in her condemnation of U.S. policy. For example, she
responded to reports of the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review by
exclaiming that "lunatics have taken over the White House."[9] A BBC
poll of 100 Labour MPs found that nearly 90 percent believe there
is insufficient evidence to justify military action against Iraq.[10] A
survey of Labour constituency chairmen in the party's 100 most
vulnerable seats found that an overwhelming majority
opposed such a war.[11]

The Labour leadership
is braced for a storm of protest over the Iraq question at next
month's party conference.[12] Some
Labour MPs warn the issue could deeply divide the party and even
result in Tony Blair being forced to step down as Labour leader.
Tony Benn, a veteran socialist MP, advised Blair to warn President
Bush "that he should abandon his war plans or America will be
totally isolated." A war with Iraq, Benn continued, "could cost
Tony Blair his job, undermine public support for the government as
a whole, inflict untold suffering on millions-and must be
stopped."[13] Tam
Dalyell, the longest-serving member of the Commons, has condemned
Blair's foreign policy as "catastrophic" and described him as "the
worst Labour prime minister I've known."[14]

A deep-seated hatred of
the current Bush Administration is evident in some quarters of the
Labour Party, and the United States should be under no illusions
that the party led by Tony Blair shares his pro-American stance.
Labour traditionally has been a socialist movement that is hostile
to many aspects of U.S. foreign policy, and there is growing
resentment over U.S. policy on a wide range of issues, from the
International Criminal Court and the Arab-Israeli conflict to the
war on terrorism, missile defense, climate change, transatlantic
trade, and the death penalty.

The
Labour Party includes such extreme figures as Scottish MP George
Galloway, senior vice-chairman of the parliamentary party's foreign
affairs committee who holds one of the most prominent Labour
foreign policy positions in the Commons. Dubbed by cynics as the
"MP for Baghdad Central,"[15] and
an "apologist" and "mouthpiece for the Iraqi regime over many
years,"[16]

Galloway has visited
Saddam Hussein on numerous occasions. On one such trip in 1994, he
caused outrage by telling the Iraqi dictator who has used chemical
weapons on his own people: "Sir, I salute your courage, your
strength, your indefatigability and I want you to know that we are
with you."[17]
Galloway has called the campaign to eliminate Baghdad's WMD "the
longest running hoax in the international community"[18] and
complained that "it is humiliating for Great Britain to turn itself
into the tail of the American dog, particularly when the head of
this dog belongs to a crazy person."[19] This
past August, on his return from his latest meeting with Saddam,
Galloway asserted:

In my
meeting with the Iraqi president last week, he seemed to believe
that our own government, with its special relationship to
Washington and its more nuanced take on Arab affairs, might be the
one to break the log jam. Seeing Britain as Greece to America's
Rome, many Arabs feel that Britain-the older though faded
power-might guide the gunslinging Americans back to the negotiating
path and adherence to UN resolutions and international law.[20]

Galloway believes the
Iraq issue will divide the party and could lead to the defeat of
the Blair leadership.[21] In a
thinly veiled threat to the Prime Minister, he warned, "If he joins
this absolutely illegal, immoral and counterproductive war, not
only will he be not be doing so in our name: he may find he will
soon cease to speak for us on anything at all."[22]

Some of the fiercest
criticism of the government's support for the United States has
come from former Labour ministers. Former Foreign Office Minister
Tony Lloyd described recent remarks by U.S. National Security
Adviser Condoleezza Rice to the BBC as "very much like the rhetoric
we sometimes hear from fairly tinpot regimes…where the
agenda isn't to convince the outside world but to make sure the
public at home believes the regime."[23]
Gerald Kaufman, Labour shadow foreign secretary during the first
Gulf War and an influential figure on the backbenches, has warned
that an attack on Iraq could result in "a wholesale Middle East
conflagration." His views on the Bush Administration are scathing:
"Pity the man who relies on Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice for
counsel."[24]

Tony Blair may dismiss
such statements as old-fashioned anti-American Labour
rabble-rousing (indeed, as a former member of the Campaign for
Nuclear Disarmament he will have heard it all before). But he will
find it harder to ignore the doubts expressed by figures such as
Peter Mandelson, who twice resigned in disgrace from the Labour
cabinet. Mandelson, the architect of New Labour, is one of Blair's
most trusted advisers. He has said that "we cannot have a system in
which one state feels that it has the right to change the political
system of another or foment subversion or seize pieces of territory
it claims. Any nation doing that would be a recipe for chaos."[25]

Cabinet
Opposition

There are also signs of
a growing rift within Tony Blair's Cabinet over the Iraq issue.
Former foreign secretary and Leader of the House of Commons Robin
Cook has emerged as a leading opponent of an Iraq war. Cook, the
architect of New Labour's "ethical foreign policy", was sacked by
Blair after a series of diplomatic blunders, and there is little
love lost between the two. He has been described as "a new and
undeniably dangerous spokesman of old (moral) Labour."[26] Cook
is said to have deep reservations about Blair's support for
President Bush, although he has not yet issued any public
statements criticizing the government's position.

If Cook does speak out
against military action, he is likely to be supported by
International Development Secretary Clare Short, who resigned from
the Labour Shadow Cabinet over the first Gulf War in 1991. Short is
the most outspoken and left-wing member of the Blair team, and has
already warned that there is a "bottom line" to her support for
future government policy on Iraq. She was admonished by Blair in
April for publicly warning against "blind military action against
Iraq."[27]
While no Labour minister in a Blair cabinet has yet resigned on a
matter of principle, it is conceivable that Short could step down
over an Iraq invasion.

In contrast to Downing
Street, Short believes the question of how to tackle Saddam is
"still open." The position of Short and other critics in the
Cabinet has been strengthened in recent weeks by what Short
describes as "a lot of wise voices in the US (who) are saying it
would be enormously dangerous for the US to go it alone."[28]
There is little doubt that the anti-war statements of such former
U.S. government officials as James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, and
Lawrence Eagleburger have emboldened British and European critics
of President Bush's policy of regime change.

Margaret Beckett, the
Environment Secretary, also publicly expressed doubts over the
Prime Minister's support for the U.S. position on Iraq, tying
"conflict in the world" with poverty and environmental
degradation.[29]
Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown-who is most likely to take
over if Blair is forced out of office-has privately expressed
reservations about the effects an Iraq conflict would have on the
global economy.[30] Home
Secretary David Blunkett, another leading contender for the future
leadership of the Labour Party, has warned that Muslim youths may
riot in British inner cities if war breaks out in the Middle East.

Foreign Secretary Jack
Straw has been critical in the past of several aspects of the Bush
Administration's foreign policy, including the President's State of
the Union address and U.S. treatment of Taliban and al-Qaeda
prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. He has been a leading advocate of
"constructive engagement" of rogue states, such as Iran. While
Straw has stood by Tony Blair's hard-line stance on dealing with
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, he still firmly believes that
the best way of dealing with the Iraqi threat is through the
reintroduction of weapons inspectors. He favors setting a deadline
for Iraq to readmit the weapons inspectors with unfettered access.
His belief that war can be avoided[31] is
different from Blair's. The Prime Minister has called for the
unconditional return of U.N. inspectors, but holds the view that a
regime change will probably still be necessary.

Standing Alone
in SupportOnly Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, has emerged as a
strong supporter of the United States' (and Blair's) tough position
on Iraq and rogue states. Hoon, by far the most hawkish member of
the Blair team, has stated that Britain would be prepared to use
nuclear weapons if necessary against rogue nations that use WMD
against British troops.[32] Hoon
believes that Britain would be "perfectly entitled" to use force
against Iraq without a United Nations mandate if Baghdad posed a
threat.[33]

The Risks for
Blair
The real danger for Tony Blair lies in the possibility of a major
Cabinet uprising combined with widespread Labour backbench
opposition. The resignation of two or three Cabinet ministers, in
conjunction with a sizeable backbench rebellion, could prompt calls
for a "regime change" within the Labour Party.

At present, this
scenario is unlikely. There are no immediate signs of a major
Cabinet revolt. However Blair's own position may become
substantially weaker in the coming months, as the Prime Minister
comes under increasing pressure from his own MPs, Labour Party
activists, trade unions, and left-wing media to distance himself
from President Bush. If the tide swings heavily against the
government in the parliamentary Labour Party, this is likely to
spur greater open opposition within the Cabinet.

Critics
of War

An extraordinary
coalition of Labour politicians, church representatives, trade
union leaders, academics, former diplomats, and ex-military chiefs
has evolved in recent weeks, making Iraq the biggest foreign policy
protest issue in Britain since the late 1960s.

Many of the attacks on
British and U.S. policy toward Iraq reflect deep-seated
anti-Americanism and resentment at rising U.S. military power since
the September 11 terrorist attacks. The frank views of Richard
Dawkins, an eminent Oxford University zoologist, are representative
of those of many British liberal academic elites. Dawkins has
spoken out against removing Saddam Hussein from power, and has made
provocatively clear his disdain of the Prime Minister's close ties
to President Bush:

Obnoxious as Saddam
Hussein undoubtedly is, it is not obvious that he is more of a
danger to the world than President Bush and his reckless handlers.
It would be a tragedy if Tony Blair, a good man who has so much to
offer this country, were to be brought down through playing poodle
to this unelected and deeply stupid little oil spiv.[34]

The British clergy is
also voicing strong anti-war concerns. Britain's two most senior
churchmen-Dr. George Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster-have
led a cacophony of sanctimonious disapproval of Blair's close
alliance with President Bush over Iraq. The Right Reverend Thomas
McMahon, one of four Catholic bishops publicly opposed to the war,
called action against Iraq "wicked and foolhardy."[35] Dr.
Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Wales, who is due to take over as the
next Archbishop of Canterbury, has declared that an Iraq war would
be tantamount to fighting "terror with terror" and a "violation of
both the United Nations and Christian moral teaching."[36]
Williams has argued that the attacks of September 11 cannot be
viewed as "an act of war."[37]

The anti-war Left has
joined a curious alliance with senior former military officials and
retired generals opposed to war. The specter of Suez and Britain's
ill-fated intervention in the Middle East in the1950s once again
haunt the opinion editorial pages of British newspapers. Sir
Michael Quinlan, former head of the Ministry of Defence, finds
American claims of a "just war" against Iraq "deeply questionable,"
and a war with Iraq "could provoke more severe domestic division
than Britain has seen since the Suez Crisis."[38]
Field Marshall Lord Bramall, former chief of defence staff, also
drew parallels with the ill-fated British and French attack on
Egypt in 1956, describing the current build-up to war as "a
potentially very dangerous situation, in which this country might
be swept into a very, very messy and long-lasting Middle East War."
He questions America's motives, believing that in the aftermath of
September 11 it could be "carried along with the same wave of
emotion and a feeling of revenge."[39]
General Sir Michael Rose, former commander of international
peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, fueled the debate by writing
about "huge political and military risks associated with launching
large-scale ground forces into Iraq."[40]

British
Public Opinion

Blair also has a
challenge in building public support. The latest opinion polls in
Britain found increasing opposition to British participation in an
Iraq war. An August ICM poll quoted in the Guardian found that 52
percent of Britons were opposed to military action and just 33
percent were in favor. Opposition to war has risen 14 percentage
points since March.[41] The
Prime Minister's private pollster Philip Gould has warned Blair
that President Bush is deeply unpopular with many British voters.[42] And
a poll taken in Blair's own district of Sedgefield revealed that
nearly two thirds of his constituents opposed his support for the
U.S. President.[43]

Making the Case
for War with Iraq
There are however some positive signs for a Blair government if it
chooses to go to war with Iraq. A striking 77 percent of
respondents in a Telegraph YouGov poll
believed that Saddam Hussein is "a threat to the peace of the
world"; 75 percent supported the view that Iraq was seeking to
develop weapons of mass destruction, and 74 percent thought that
Saddam supported terrorism against the United States and other
Western countries.[44]
There is every reason to believe that public opinion in the U.K. in
the coming months could be swayed in the government's favor if the
Prime Minister makes the case for war strongly to the British
public.

Though the British
government was relatively silent on the Iraq issue over the summer,
the case against Iraq is now being made powerfully by Downing
Street and the Foreign Office. The release of the British
government's dossier on Saddam's threat capability should have a
marked impact on public opinion. Greater clarity emerging on the
Iraq issue from Washington will also help to strengthen Blair's
case domestically.

In addition, the recent
statements by Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith
supporting Blair's position on Iraq[45]
should bolster support among Conservatives for military action.
Just one third of Tory voters back the Prime Minister on Iraq,
which is more a reflection of anti-Blair feeling than an expression
of anti-war sentiment. The Prime Minister will need the support of
Britain's second largest parliamentary party as he heads off
criticism of his Iraq policy. It is significant that not one
Conservative MP signed the Commons motion condemning U.S. policy on
Iraq.

Blair should also draw
comfort from the fact that a majority of the British print media
are supportive of British participation in a regime change in
Baghdad. The Daily
Telegraph, The
Times, The Sun, and
The Mail, with a
combined readership of 19.2 million, all support military action.
The Labour-supporting publications, The Guardian, Independent, and Mirror, with 7.3 million
readers, are firmly opposed.[46]
Significantly for Blair, the hugely popular tabloid newspaper, The Sun, with a daily
circulation of 4 million copies, is loudly beating the drum for
war. The Sun played a
leading role in bringing Blair to power in the last two general
elections, and it is expected to provide powerful backing for the
Prime Minister over the Iraq issue.

Historical evidence
suggests that the British, an intensely patriotic people with a
proud history of successfully waging war, will rally around the
government at a time of battle. Every major conflict which Britain
has been involved in since the Falklands War has been supported by
overwhelming majorities. But it is ironic that a Labour Prime
Minister may need the backing of a right-wing opposition press in
order to ensure his political survival.

Conclusion

Britain is highly
likely to join the United States in military action against Iraq,
even perhaps without the support of the United Nations, and it is
expected to play a central role in a post-war security force. Its
participation also is vitally important in helping America build an
international military and diplomatic coalition to remove Saddam
Hussein from power. If Britain does not participate in the regime
change in Baghdad, there is a danger the United States may well be
left in splendid isolation on the international stage.

Ideally, both the U.K.
government and Washington would like to see a "regime change" in
Iraq with the blessing of the U.N. Security Council, but this may
not be achievable. The British are under no illusions about the
prevarication strategy of the Iraqi government, and they fully
understand Saddam Hussein's time-delaying tactics in a desperate
attempt to halt a U.S.-led strike.

While the British Prime
Minister is currently backing President Bush's stance on Iraq, that
situation could change in the coming months. At present, Blair's
position is strong enough to withstand Labour calls for Britain to
drop plans to join America in a war against Iraq. His relatively
powerful standing as both Prime Minister and leader of the Labour
Party could be eroded over the next six to 12 months by potential
leadership challenges and by growing discontent on the Left of the
party.

Blair should be able to
win the battle of public opinion over the Iraq issue, but he may
struggle to convince his own party. He will only go into a war
against Iraq from a position of strength and if he believes his
future is secure. The Bush Administration should be aware that
Blair will come under increasing pressure to play a more forthright
role in helping to resolve the current Palestinian conflict as
well, and his appetite for action against Saddam could start to
wane if Britain becomes enmeshed in international efforts to
contain the Arab-Israeli dispute.

There are many reasons
that the United States should act sooner rather than later if Iraq
fails to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction and abide by
U.N. resolutions. Among them are the strong support from the
British government for a U.S.-led action against Saddam and the
political pressures on Blair to step back from that support. The
Bush Administration must recognize the difficulties Blair faces in
shoring up support domestically and across Europe and demonstrate
its support for his courageous leadership. It should also focus on
ways to strengthen the Anglo-U.S. "special relationship" while
building an international coalition for a campaign to oust Saddam
Hussein.

Nile Gardiner, Ph.D.,
is a Visiting Fellow in Anglo-American Security Policy in the
Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies
at the Heritage Foundation.